MikeHickerson.com

I recently read Life Together by Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a book I had long wanted to read and which I wish I had read much sooner.  Among the many wise things Bonhoeffer writes in this short book, he describes “the day alone,” and counsels Christians to spend time alone - really, alone with God - in what he calls “meditation.”  This meditation 

is to be devoted to the Scriptures, private prayer, and intercession, and it has no other purpose.  There is no occasion here for spiritual experimentation. 

The whole time, though, is to be guided by meditation on Scripture.  Both your private prayer and your intercession for others, Bonhoeffer advises, should be guided by the Scriptures you meditate upon. 

In another book that I have started reading, Why Church Matters by Jonathan R. Wilson, Wilson describes theology as “the language of faith, not the language about faith.” Bonhoeffer centers our prayers in the words of Scripture so that God’s language will shape us, rather than our false ideas of God shaping our reading of Scripture. 

I’ve long been uncomfortable with our contemporary habit of attacking our dead ancestors in the church for their blind spots.   I hope you know what I mean: you’ll be reading some Christian classic from 100, 200, even 1500 years ago, and suddenly come across a phrase or thought that is so utterly abhorrent to you, that for a second you can’t believe that this person was actually a believer. For example, I read a book review recently, in which the reviewer condemned the book’s author for making the same mistakes as Augustine, Aquinas, and Calvin.   (If I’m going to be making mistakes, that’s the company I want to keep!) 

It’s easy for us to condemn these uncomfortable statements from the past as patently absurd and plainly anti-gospel.  And our culture habitually favors the new, so it’s easy for us to see our current culture as inherently superior to that of the past.  And, let’s admit it, it’s easy: the dead are no longer around to defend themselves.  We don’t have to worry about some preacher from 300 years ago calling us up and giving us an earful for distorting his sermon. 

We have our own cultural blind spots, and reading books from the past with a hyper-critical eye robs us of the chance of having our own blind spots pointed out.  C. S. Lewis and G. K. Chesterton each made this point in various places, and I recently heard an interview with the late Jaroslav Pelikan that again made this point well.  Pelikan was a church historian, and he described his role as “filing a minority report for the past 2,000 years.” 

Secondly, we deny the communion of the saints when we are too quick to point out the faults of our spiritual ancestors.  Today, it is easy to condemn a dead believer or long-gone community of believers for their now-rejected beliefs.  It is much harder to extend grace to them and accept them as brothers and sisters in Christ. It is much harder to forgive their faults, and praise them for the accomplishments they achieved without the benefit of hindsight.  It is much harder to put aside judgment, and submit ourselves to their judgment, so that our own blind spots can be revealed. 

Last week, while my wife and I were getting to know our new son, a group of prominent evangelical leaders released “An Evangelical Manifesto,” which issues to evangelical Christians (or “Evangelical” with a capital “e,” as the document recommends)

an urgent challenge to reaffirm Evangelical identity, to reform Evangelical behavior, to reposition Evangelicals in public life, and so rededicate ourselves to the high calling of being Evangelical followers of Jesus Christ.

There is much to commend in this document, and the signatories are some pretty heavy hitters in the Evangelical world. Since this is an election year, it touches on the issue of religion and politics.  Here’s GetReligion’s take on one aspect: 

Granted, “An Evangelical Manifesto” lacks specific examples of evangelical political misbehavior. It urges an “expansion of concern beyond single-issue politics,” but fails to sketch out how this might be accomplished or what form this would take. A Communist Manifesto this is not.

Here is the section from the manifesto itself:

We call for an expansion of our concern beyond single-issue politics, such as abortion and marriage, and a fuller recognition of the comprehensive causes and concerns of the Gospel, and of all the human issues that must be engaged in public life.  Although we cannot back away from our biblically rooted commitment to the sanctity of every human life, including those unborn, nor can we deny the holiness of marriage as instituted by God between one man and one woman, we must follow the model of Jesus, the Prince of Peace,  engaging the global giants of conflict, racism, corruption, poverty, pandemic diseases, illiteracy, ignorance, and spiritual emptiness, by promoting reconciliation, encouraging ethical servant leadership, assisting the poor, caring for the sick, and educating the next generation.  We believe it is our calling to be good stewards of all God has entrusted to our care so that it may be passed on to generations yet to be born.  (”An Evangelical Manifesto, 13-14)

Nothing I particularly disagree with here, but I am puzzled by the hand-wringing over “single issue politics.” If our goal is to be obedient to Biblical truth, and to call both major political parties to a deeper faithfulness to Biblical truth, then I’m not sure that accepting abortion rights - or, at least, accepting an acceptance of abortion rights - is all that good of an idea.  Abortion is a “hot button” issue precisely because it is an important issue, just as slavery, suffrage for women, and civil rights have been “hot button” issues in our country.  

Neither political party fully embraces God’s desire for our nation or our world.  We should never expect them to.  But when we vote, we’re faced with an imperfect choice.  We can’t say “I’ll vote for Candidate A on Issues X, Y, and Z, and Candidate B on Issues T, U, and V.” If, as this manifesto suggests, voting based on the issue we consider most important is not acceptable, what, then, is the right way for a Christian to vote in America? 

In my post about free books, I mentioned the incredible Christian Classics Ethereal Library, which offers thousands of public domain versions of Christian writings from the early church up through the 19th century. Here’s another great resource: the CCEL is collaborating with the Calvin Institute for Worship to offer the Calvin Hymnary Project, with full or partial texts of over 14,000 hymns, over 7,000 hymn tunes, 27 complete hymnals…I could go on, because I’m pretty excited about hymns.  Here’s just one cool item: the complete text and tunes of the influential shape-note hymnal, William Walker’s Southern Harmony , an 1835 hymnal that became one of the most important hymnals of the American Southern church (and which was sung from at the annual Big Singing in my hometown of Benton, KY.)  If you know the hymn “What Wondrous Love is This,” then you know Southern Harmony.  

I’m a nut about hymns and hymnals, but this is a great resource for any Christian whose looking for a particular hymn, or even just wanting to explore the great tradition of hymns. 

Link: The Calvin Hymnary Project

I recently finished reading for the first time Life Together by Dietrich Bonhoeffer.  I purposely say “for the first time” because I suspect that this is only the first of many readings.  When reading, I like to flag passages that speak to me, that I would like to come back to and record for later study.  As you can see, Life Together wound up with many, many such flags. 

Here’s one passage that struck as being particularly appropriate to the university. Bonhoeffer is contrasting a community built on the Word of God in Jesus Christ with a community built on human desires. 

The basis of all spiritual reality is the clear, manifest Word of God in Jesus Christ.  The basis of all human reality is the dark, turbid urges and desires of the human mind.  The basis of the community of the Spirit is truth; the basis of human community of spirit is desire…In the community of the Spirit the Word of God alone rules; in human community of spirit there rules, along with the Word, the man who is furnished with exceptional powers, experience, and magical, suggestive capacities. There God’s Word alone is bring; here, besides the Word, men bind others to themselves.  There all power, honor, and dominion are surrendered to the Holy Spirit; here spheres of power and influence of a personal nature are sought and cultivated.  It is true, in so far as these are devout men, that they do this with the intention of serving the highest and the best, but in actuality the result is to dethrone the Holy Spirit, to relegate Him to  unreality. (Life Together, 31-32, emphasis added)

Doesn’t this reflect the university in many ways?  It is absolutely true that there are many, many “devout men (and women)” within the academy who have “the intention of serving the highest and the best.” And they often succeed.  Consider, as just one example, the incredible life-saving medical advances that university researchers devote their entire careers to.  Yet they neglect the One who truly is the highest and the best.  

The Book of Common Prayer offers the following prayer for universities, colleges, and schools, which points to God as the source and end of all knowledge:

Almighty God, of whose only gift cometh wisdom and understanding: We beseech thee with thy gracious favor to behold our universities, colleges, and schools, that knowledge may be increased among us, and all good learning flourish and abound.  Bless all who teach and all who learn; and grant that in humility of heart they may ever look unto thee, who art the fountain of all wisdom; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. 

The journal Nature ($) recently found evidence of significant drug use among academics for the purpose of improving mental ability and increasing productivity.  The Chronicle of Higher Education’s News Blog summarized Nature’s findings like this:

In an online survey of 1,400 readers, Nature found that 20 percent had taken pharmaceuticals for the nonmedical purpose of improving their concentration, focus, and memory. Most of the people who responded to the survey were involved in science, engineering, or education. “The numbers suggest a significant amount of drug-taking among academics,” the magazine said.

The drugs most commonly used were Ritalin, Provigil (which reduces the need for sleep - here is David Plotz’s account of his experience with the drug), and beta blockers. 

Considering the high-pressure, high-stakes environment that many scholars find themselves in, I don’t think it’s surprising that some are turning to performance-enhancing drugs.  It’s not a new trend, either: consider the number of novelists and poets who have turned to alcohol or narcotics to help their writing come more easily. 

I have mixed feelings about this.  I can sympathize (greatly!) with the desire to accomplish more, write more, read more, and to use “artificial” means to get there.  Isn’t this why I drink 2 cups of coffee each morning, to help me become more alert?  I confess that, if I had access to Provigil, I would be strongly tempted to take it.  I struggle to carve out hours in the day to read and write, and adding 8 more hours overnight would be incredible. 

On the other hand, I wonder where this fits into God’s design for our minds and bodies.  We are made in God’s image, with the ability to reason, meditate, study, ponder.  God’s image also includes the Sabbath rest, and a pattern of engagement and withdrawal.  We see this in Genesis 1 and 2, in the ministry of Jesus, and in the promises given to God’s people.  I have a hard time imagining Jesus using Ritalin to help him prep for the Sermon on the Mount, or suggesting that the disciples use Provigil so they could stay up longer. 

For this Good Friday, I am sharing a cycle of hymns that I wrote for my master’s thesis.  These are based on the so-called “seven last words” - the seven statements that Jesus makes from the cross in the Gospels, which many churches use liturgically for Good Friday services.  I wrote the lyrics: the tunes are traditional hymn tunes that can be found in many hymnals.  May they bless you in reading and singing them as much as they blessed me in writing them.  The Seven Last Words (PDF) 

Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let’s read our bibles. Folks haven’t been reading their bibles.

- Barack Obama, June 28, 2006, “Call to Renewal”

The more I read this passage, the more confused I am.  Obama goes on to make a good distinction between the commandments of a religion based on the teachings of that religion and general laws and policies that must be agreed upon by people of many religions.  But I wonder what he had in mind about basing “public policy” on the Sermon on the Mount.

Does he mean outlawing anger or lust?  Or providing tax incentives for the meek?  Or passing national building codes requiring foundations to be set on solid rock?  It’s not a simple equation from Scripture to public policy - and, I would argue, many of the opponents of abortion and same-sex marriage are not basing their positions on proof texts, as Obama parodies them.  I’m not sure if this is political rhetoric to play up to his crowd, or if Obama legitimately doesn’t understand the Biblical arguments against abortion or homosexual marriage.

Obama has been increasing his religious language in the last few days, and the great website GetReligion.org posted an article calling for reporters to ask Obama more direct questions about how he sees various Biblical passages influencing his policy positions.  I second that motion.

The Wall Street Journal ran an interesting article earlier this week about the role of a “surprisingly virulent strain of anti-Mormonism” that was brought to the surface by Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign. Combine this with a New York Times editorial that wonder “anti-Mormon bigots” is an appropriate label for evangelicals who don’t want to vote for a Mormon for president, and you have a good occasion for wondering what exactly constitutes “bigotry.”

I am not going to discuss the differences between Mormonism and historic Christianity here.  There’s enough of that available, and the Latter-Day Saints’ official view of historic Christianity should be enough  for the time being. 

Instead, I want to discuss the difference between “bigotry” and legitimate disagreement.  There is, I think, real “anti-Mormon bigotry” - individuals who aim to discredit Mormons (including Mitt Romney) based on simple prejudice, without knowledge of Mormons’ religious beliefs or concern for theological truth. 

On other hand, people are justified in discerning between false and true beliefs, and in discerning the differences between different religious teachings.  When backed with reasoned arguments, claims that Mormonism differs significantly from historic Christian - so significantly, in fact, that one can argue that Mormonism is not merely one denomination among many, but a completely new religion - are not examples of bigotry.  Christians who wish to convince Mormons that their beliefs are incorrect and who call them to accept a different set of teachings should not automatically be considered bigots.  Mormons, after all, are quite active in trying to convert Christians to their set of beliefs. 

If Mormonism is not a true form of Christianity, does that justify discrimination against Mormons in non-religious contexts?  (I hope that it goes without saying that it justifies, for example, not hiring a Mormon to be pastor of your Baptist church.) 

In the great majority of cases, it does not.  Let’s take the case of choosing an auto mechanic.  The qualities most people seek in an auto mechanic - competency, honesty, fairness, reasonable prices for the service performed - don’t depend on religious affiliation.  They fall under what C. S. Lewis called the Tao in his book The Abolition of Man: an objective moral reality that is true for all people in all cultures, which diverse religions have recognized as fundamental moral laws, and which (unfortunately) followers of diverse religions continue to violate.  Someone who tells you “I’m a Christian” is no more trustworthy prima facie than someone who tells you, “I’m a Mormon,” “I’m a Muslim,” or “I’m an atheist.” (In fact, someone who makes a big deal of pointing out their Christianity may in fact be less trustworthy, because they may be trying to gain your trust without having to earn it.) Instead of discrimination, I would hope that Christians would model the same kind of hospitality and graciousness that Jesus modeled in his interactions with Samaritans and Romans.

So then, should Christians make no distinctions whatsoever between types of belief?  This post has already gone on long enough - I will return to that question soon. 

Powered by ScribeFire.

In USA Today, David Gushee writes a plea to evangelicals suggesting that evangelical Christians should not be “married to the Republican Party.” I agree. But I think Gushee overlooks something vitally important when he writes,

Conservative evangelicals generally offer an unbiblically narrow policy agenda focused on just a few moral issues such as abortion and gay marriage instead of tackling the full range of biblical concerns, which include poverty, oppression and war.

There is no doubt that poverty, oppression, and war are important issues.  However, if you believe that an unborn baby is a living human being with the right to life, then abortion has killed millions of children in the 30+ years since Roe v. Wade.   As much as I might agree with a politician on a broad range of issues, I find it impossible to support someone - Republican or Democrat - who thinks that abortion is either no big deal or a fundamental human right.  And I think many evangelical Christians feel exactly like I do.

The Republican Party platform opposes abortion.  The Democratic Party platform states “we stand proudly for a woman’s right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay.”  I wish that it weren’t as simple as that - I wish that I had a legitimate choice between two or more political parties who opposed killing unborn children.  There’s a lot about the Republican Party that I dislike.  But I could no more vote for a pro-choice Democrat (or a pro-choice Republican) than I could vote for a candidate who accepted slavery as a moral right.